I occasionally check the Free Wargames Rules site, and lo and behold, someone
has modified StarGrunt for medieval:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041015045724/http://mudgrunt.vildbasse.dk/
I've only lightly skimmed it so have no comments on its quality other than
to say that some things are flat wrong--eg that pikes were useless
against
infantry, or that no one used untrained (yellow) troops--but you might
glean some useful ideas.
Not to hijack the thread, but what happened to the Berkley based mailing
lists? Both the test and the main mailing lists died on Friday with some sort
of "out of storage" message.
> On 7/4/06, Laserlight <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041015045724/http://mudgrunt.vildbasse.dk/
> I've only lightly skimmed it so have no comments on its quality other
Some useful ideas, I guess. It would require a complete rework IMHO. It does
not substantially address the difference between close order and loose order
troops, which is probably the key concept when dealing with medieval units.
I'm baffled by the idea that "Damascus Swords" and "Flails" were the two
examples of excellent weapons. I wouldn't class either that way. Damascus
swords weren't enough improved to be worth a die shift, and flails weren't
that great at all, or more folks would have used them.
It isn't nearly harsh enough on loose order infantry being run down by shock
cavalry, nor does it simulate the difficulties in mounted units charging
disciplined close order infantrymen (be they Swiss pikes, War of the Roses
billmen, Flemish guildsmen, Scottish schiltrons, Saxon fyrd backed with
huscarls, etc etc etc).
I also argue with the idea that suppressing units was a factor. Missile fire
was more important for disrupting the formations and lowering the morale so
that they would break when charged by the heavy cavalry.